turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Temujin, Genghis Khan
Khan was the title, not the name. I'm not sure whether, for alphabetical purposes, we should be calling him Temujin or Genghis, but treating "Khan" as though it were his family name is like saying that President Barack Obama belongs under the P's. Turtle Fan 02:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC) :I moved him to Genghis as that's probably where most people will go looking. TR 02:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC) ::Temujin was his birth name. After he beat the Tartars he started calling himself Genghis, meaning "sea of grass." Adding khan to it made him "King of the Sea of Grass," claiming the entire Mongolian steppe for himself. His lieutenants stopped calling him "Temujin" at that point and called him "Genghis" exclusively. So I guess that's appropriate. Turtle Fan 03:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC) You know, we have him as having several spouses, but I read a book on him last summer and according to the author's research (which I'm too lazy to duplicate or dispute) he was monogamous. In fact, I do believe that monogamy was the norm among the pre-Imperial Mongols. Turtle Fan 18:58, April 9, 2010 (UTC) :That needs cleaning up. It looks like his first wife predeceased him. I may have been too tired/lazy to fully determine the fate of each. TR 19:00, April 9, 2010 (UTC) :::Ok, scratch that. I just did a google search, and he was indeed polygamous. TR 19:01, April 9, 2010 (UTC) ::::He was? I find myself feeling strangely disappointed. I thought of Genghis's monogamy as a sign of his chivalry. God knows why--He was just following his people's cultural norms either way. Turtle Fan 20:21, April 9, 2010 (UTC) Titles Khan is usually translated as king, isn't it? Khagan is emperor; he was given that title only posthumously, but I put him in the Emperors category just the same. Turtle Fan 23:43, October 27, 2010 (UTC) Barbecue Having just put a microscope to "The Barbecue, the Movie, & Other Unfortunately Not So Relevant Material" and squeezed 7 or so new articles out of it (both for historical references and minor fictional characters), it hit me that this story, while mildly funny, is pretty dumb. Here we have one of the most bloodthirsty and ruthlessly influential motherfuckers of all time, and this is the most substantial thing that the "master of alternate history" has ever done with him?JonathanMarkoff (talk) 08:10, June 19, 2016 (UTC) :A distinct point. He's one of the tiny, tiny number of people of whom it can truly be said, Take out his individual life and a significant chunk of history would be rewritten. AH gold, really. Turtle Fan (talk) 13:42, June 19, 2016 (UTC) ::I suspect that has more to do with the dictates of the market. While nearly everyone in the Anglo-American world has heard of Genghis Khan, they aren't 100% sure WHY they've heard of him. Consequently, publishers have probably come to the conclusion that there are not be enough history buffs in the reading public to make such a project profitable. :::True. There are a lot of misconceptions swirling around him too, including Jonathan's comment about him being bloodthirsty and ruthless. And while it's true that the body counts he left in his wake were mind-boggling, they were just scaled-up versions that pretty closely matched the casualty rates of just about every military commander of his time. There's ever so much more to his story. :::At any rate, Mongol suzerainty was effective at curbing small-scale violence. Stories abound of merchants who didn't bother hiring caravan guards on thousand-mile journeys, because the highways were that safe. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:47, June 19, 2016 (UTC) ::I've made this observation in the past. DelRey sure seemed to stay in the WWII and ACW lanes for most of the 2000s, and not just with HT. But those AH stories will sell. They've kind of pulled away from that now that they've merged with Penguin (the publisher who released most of HT's non-WWII work); in addition to THW, there's a Roman Empire AH from another author that's ongoing. TR (talk) 15:02, June 19, 2016 (UTC) :::About the time Penguin was taking over Del Rey, Conn Iggulden's series on Genghis sold very well. That's straight historical fiction. There was a sort of collaborative quasi-AH written by a huge number of SF authors a few years ago, set during the end of Ogedai's reign, when Tsubodai had conquered Hungary and all of Christendom was trembling in fear. It sucked balls. Not sure whether it flopped commercially, nor whether I should hope it did: It was terrible enough to deserve it, but high-profile commercial failure is sure to have a chilling effect on similar but better projects. ::::Yeah, it's a tricky thing. The sad part is, the publishers (and movie studios, etc.) will operate on various assumptions about what sells and cling on to them like grim death. Moreover, what they deem a success is utterly subjective. Hypothetically speaking, Penguin-Random House could see Iggulden's numbers, and look at HT's numbers, and decide a Genghis Khan AH by HT will sell at least X units and contract for a book. However, if such a project sells less than X, then it could be deemed a "failure", and send the publisher back to safe places. :::::I see. I also see how very inconsistent that could become. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:59, June 19, 2016 (UTC) ::::I think I've probably shared this anecdote about Eric Flint: 1632 did brilliantly at Baen, so DelRey grabbed the Rivers of War books. They sold quite well by anyone's counting, but because they didn't do 1632 numbers, DelRey kind of decided the RoW books were duds. TR (talk) 20:16, June 19, 2016 (UTC) :::::Ah, too bad. I liked those. Don' remember much about them now. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:59, June 19, 2016 (UTC) :::Is the Roman series any good? I haven't heard of it. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:47, June 19, 2016 (UTC) ::::Clash of Eagles. I haven't read it either. Sounds intriguing if a little well-tread. TR (talk) 20:16, June 19, 2016 (UTC) :::::That's the nice thing about getting away from everyone's two favorite wars: Even the relatively well-tread premises haven't had the chance to become so tired. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:59, June 19, 2016 (UTC) Supreme Military Commanders Is this category appropriate for someone Khaaaaaaan? The description in the category is for modern, professional armies and doesn't seem suitable for groups like Mongol Hordes. ML4E (talk) 19:24, December 16, 2017 (UTC) In case this was missed in the flood of edits. ML4E (talk) 21:07, December 17, 2017 (UTC) ::I know, really. It's getting very hard to get caught up on what's going on whenever I go a couple days without checking in. Turtle Fan (talk) 06:07, December 19, 2017 (UTC) :It is probably redundant given his status as absolute ruler. I can see removing it. TR (talk) 23:50, December 17, 2017 (UTC) ::The Mongols had a military rank, Orlok, that was roughly analogous to a Marshal or a Commanding General. If the Orlok was not part of the royal bloodline, a prince would accompany him on campaign and act as a sort of political officer. But it was a separate position from Khan or Khagan. ::Genghis never used the rank of Orlok. I think he was content knowing that, when he was on the field, everyone knew who was in charge. He'd probably agree with Mrs Thatcher: "If you need to tell people you're powerful, you're not." Turtle Fan (talk) 06:07, December 19, 2017 (UTC)